Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

START Supporters Play Iran Card

The Obama administration is trying to sell the new START to Republicans by arguing that failure to ratify the treaty would weaken efforts to apply collective international pressure on Iran’s nuclear program.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Of all the arguments the Barack Obama administration is marshalling in support of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, the one that may have the greatest resonance with Republicans is over Iran.

White House nuclear nonproliferation chief Gary Samore made the link on Thursday, saying that failure to ratify START in the lame-duck Congressional session would "weaken the coalition" against Iran's nuclear programme, especially with regard to "maintaining coordination with Russia".

Russia has proved more helpful against Iran than many had expected. It voted in favour of tough new sanctions in the U.N. Security Council last summer and canceled the sale of the S-300 air defence system that Iran had sought to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack on its nuclear sites.

Experts agree that this cooperation could be jeopardised if the Senate fails to ratify START, the jewel in the crown of the U.S.-Russia reset.

Mark Katz, a specialist on Russia at George Mason University in Virginia, said Russia's cancellation of the air defence sale "was a concession to get the Senate to come to the right conclusion" about the arms reduction treaty. Russia will "revisit" that decision if the treaty does not go through, he said.

Richard Burt, a former arms control negotiator who now chairs Global Zero, a group seeking to rid the world of nuclear weapons, said Wednesday on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer that "there are only two governments in the world that wouldn't like to see this treaty ratified, the government in Tehran and the government in North Korea."

START would limit the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 warheads and 800 delivery vehicles each, a modest reduction from current levels. Prospects for the treaty's ratification dimmed earlier this week when Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, who has led Republican talks with the administration over START, said he doubted there would be time in the current session to bring the measure to a vote on the Senate floor.

The only Republican senator who has come out strongly in favour of swift passage is Richard Lugar of Indiana, ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee. To gain the 67 votes needed for passage, the Obama administration needs eight more Republicans.

Democrats have accused Republicans of stalling to undermine Obama's re-election prospects. Samore, speaking to an audience at the Nixon Center, said the issue was much bigger than that and that the treaty "has become an important symbol of U.S. leadership".

Intense negotiations are continuing to try to sway Senate Republicans including Kyl, who was just re-elected to a leadership position in the Republican caucus.

Stephen Rademaker, a former assistant secretary of state dealing with nonproliferation under the George W. Bush administration, said Kyl "has not said he's opposed" to the treaty and that the Arizona Republican is negotiating for more money for the modernisation of the remaining U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. The administration has already promised nearly $85 billion over the next 10 years, a pledge that Samore said would be jeopardised if the treaty does not pass this year.

Rademaker, a Republican who has criticised the treaty in the past, said that the prospect of weakening the international consensus on Iran could lead him to support the accord.

"If I were a senator, I would try to find a way to vote in favour of the treaty," he said. He added later, however, that, "I would need a lot more conditions and other clarifications than are currently in the resolution of advice and consent in order to fix as many of the treaty's problems as possible."

Samore stressed that Iran is the administration priority when it comes to nonproliferation. Although Iran denies that it seeking weapons, Samore said he had no doubt that nuclear weapons was Iran's goal. He called it a country that is "eating away at it [the international nonproliferation regime] like a cancer".

The administration is hopeful that sanctions and Iran's growing international isolation will persuade it to slow its nuclear progress and negotiate meaningful limits to the programme. A new round of talks is expected as soon as Dec. 5, although Iran has yet to agree on where they will take place. The Tehran government has suggested Turkey, but Samore said that was not possible because Turkey voted against sanctions in the U.N. Security Council and thus "is not a neutral venue".

Samore confirmed that the U.S. and its partners are revising a year-old offer to Iran to exchange fuel for a research reactor that produces medical isotopes for low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled at its facility in Natanz. Samore said the U.S. is still insisting that Iran also agree to suspend its entire uranium enrichment programme, in accordance with U.N. resolutions, but indicated that the suspension could be temporary.

The duration of such a suspension and "the terms under which it could be lifted" would be a topic for negotiations, he said.

Iran insists that it has a right to enrich uranium as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Samore rejected the suggestion that Israel would have to clarify its nuclear weapons programme as part of a resolution of the Iranian nuclear file. Israel, he pointed out, is not a member of the NPT while Iran, he said, is "working within the regime to destroy it".

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share